Cat tosser speaks

Mary Bale, the woman who threw a live cat into a trash can and closed the lid, has apologized for what she did, explaining that she had a "split second of misjudgment," and "suddenly thought it would be funny."

119 Responses to “Cat tosser speaks”

There’s not a single expletive I can imagine that’s beyond the pale for this “human”. Everyone has a bad luck streak, but taking it out on an animal only shows that maybe, just maybe, your life isn’t really worth living.

I want to take this opportunity to apologise profusely for the upset and distress that my actions have caused.

She’s not sorry for being a worthless human being, merely that people are getting upset that she’s a worthless human being.

The rest of her statement is a steaming load, too. This wasn’t done on a whim. In the video, she’s very clearly and thoroughly looking for possible witnesses before she dumps the cat in the bin, after which she walks quickly away. It was a very intentional, conscious act.

Mary Bale, you’re one of the reasons I have no remaining faith in so-called “humanity”.

This kind of line is like manna to journalists- and I love the blatant character assasination that the Sun is indulging in…But the lady has thrown fuel onto her own pyre with the above comment, ensuring much more wasted police time.

This whole, “There are much greater atrocities…” argument is utter crap. If someone were to break into my house rape me, kill my dog and steal all my things am I supposed to say, “Oh, well, the children of Sudan have no things, and are raped on a daily basis therefore in comparison what has happened to me is NBD.”

Well, at least in that case you’re comparing rape to rape.
But you know what? This is a cat. A cat that is fine. I have yet to see this level of outrage directed at the far worse things people are doing to women and children- as you point out- in the Sudan. Where’s all this rage then?

Haha, Right back at you, you just dun the same. You’re wasting time along with me. You posted like anyone else. It has already been pointed out that this thread is like the “you dun goofed” meme. Only people are saying that morality is on the troll’s side. I am here to tell you that morality is rarely on the troll’s side. And I really think if that wanted to put morality on the troll’s side then they could have put up something about the what’s happening in the DRC.

I didn’t pick this topic. I didn’t even comment first on it. I waited a great deal of time. I am only commenting on the obvious perpetuation of the meme.

So I think it is unfair to place any blame on me for saying stop, when I feel the punishment has grown beyond a punishment and it has turned into tossing someone to the hypocritical morality of the trolls. Blood! Blood! It’s a YouTube Troll cage match! OK enough! Make a DRC video go viral so we can up the donations to the cause protecting them and their Rights! It would be a hell of a lot better then trolling the minutiae of our society.

Actually I do in fact contribute to the IRC which does exactly that sort of thing, and I personally volunteer with the IRC and local refugees who came from camps in places like Somalia and the DRC, if you want to go about assuming people are doing nothing but commenting on your site.

On the other hand, I can also accept, as some commenters mention, that this subject has more up for debate than that one. I think that point has more merit than berating any commenter that questions or is surprised at the amount of coverage this story is getting.

I think the “mental illness,” “mores of the greater community,” or “zeitgeist” arguments are all red herrings.

Killing, harming, or inflicting pain on another organism in any situation other than strict survival is always immoral and an act of cruelty. Here. Or there. 1,000 years ago. Or 1,000 years hence. Always.

The actions of this woman are inexcusable, and society fails if they have no codified mechanism to exact a penalty for her cruelty. If community reproach (which some disparage as vigilantism or mob assault) can inflict a punishment where a system of laws fail, I support it fully. In proportion, of course. And absolutely falling far short of physical harm. But if humiliation is to be her lot and social isolation, I say it is entirely appropriate. It is just.

I also believe in redemption. And so, she can if she chooses seek to become a person who does not amuse themselves casually by inflicting harm on innocent organisms. At this moment, however, she seems completely defiant and considers the cat to be a nothing whose suffering is of little interest to her. In other words “I’m very, very sorry, but not sorry at all. Fuck you very much and have a lovely day.”

In this, as in all things, we are called to harken to the age old wisdom of detective Tony Baretta who sagely opined “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

He also said “keep your eye on the sparrow,” but I frankly don’t know what the fuck that was about, so we can probably ignore it.

“Killing, harming, or inflicting pain on another organism in any situation other than strict survival is always immoral and an act of cruelty. Here. Or there. 1,000 years ago. Or 1,000 years hence. Always.

The actions of this woman are inexcusable, and society fails if they have no codified mechanism to exact a penalty for her cruelty.”

You base this statement on a naive view of moral behavior.

Morality and the emotions associated with it are both evolved and socially determined. Concepts of good and evil are human constructs based on the evolutionary necessity of humans to maintain a functional society. Actions that create social dysfunction tend to be classified as evil those that do not are neutral and those that promote social cohesion are good. This is very simple.

You apparently believe that the concepts of good and evil exist independently of human agency…in the aether as it were. This is a remarkably childlike and, I repeat, naive view of the world.

Different cultures may have different practices but there is a core morality that all societies must have to be successful. In-group murder is usually wrong, theft of personal property is usually wrong. Why? Because a society without these rules would be dysfunctional and be out-competed by a more unified and stable group. That’s simple logic.

Most people recognize this simple reality unconsciously as evidenced by the multitude of comments here saying in effect “if she harms animals she may be a danger to other humans and therefore she is bad, a sociopath or psychopath”. Note they relate her bad behavior to its implications to humans and human society. This is appropriate and functional morality.

Humans on the whole, with obvious exceptions due to natural variation, are evolved to value human life over other species and this rule is equally true of other species. Your independent reality of good vs evil is a fairy tale. Please come back to reality.

I should point out another elementary logical fallacy in your argument. You state “”Killing, harming, or inflicting pain on another organism in any situation other than strict survival is always immoral and an act of cruelty.”, then in the very next paragraph advocate “community reproach”, “humiliation”, “social isolation” for the organism in question (the cat lady). Humans are social creatures, social isolation is considered by experts to be a powerful and cruel method of inflicting pain on us. This is why solitary confinement is used in prison. Thus in the first paragraph you say inflicting pain is categorically wrong then in the second say the cat lady should have pain inflicted on her.

I hope you now appreciate that you are not quite as clever as you previously thought.

Killing, harming, or inflicting pain on another organism in any situation other than strict survival is always immoral and an act of cruelty.

.

Yep. I don’t even practice “catch and release” fishing, myself. But I will admit to falling short of your moral standard in some ways: I own a flyswatter, and I’m not afraid to use it.

The actions of this woman are inexcusable, and society fails if they have no codified mechanism to exact a penalty for her cruelty. If community reproach (which some disparage as vigilantism or mob assault) can inflict a punishment where a system of laws fail, I support it fully. In proportion, of course. And absolutely falling far short of physical harm. But if humiliation is to be her lot and social isolation, I say it is entirely appropriate. It is just.

.

And I’m with you here 100%, especially in terms of a proportionate punishment falling short of physical harm, which some commenters find woefully insufficient.

I don’t mean to throw red herrings about. I do and did find the cat-binning reprehensible. I just didn’t see it as the result of mental illness as I understand it (which, of course, is completely a layman’s understanding).

Oh, and by the way… when you said:

If all humans dropped dead tomorrow, cats would endure quite happily, I suspect. They don’t need us, and it’s entirely our own projection on them as to their “desire” to be “with” us.

…I think you said the rightest thing that a right person could rightly say.

To Trotsky and Others, my argument goes a little deeper then “simple vigilantism.” Though that is an apt metaphor. As an American I am well aware as to why my country chose certain paths for litigation.

Now I am aware that everyone here isn’t necessarily an American, but I feel it is important to my perspective.

The Framers when designing the American litigation process specifically feared the Athenian Mob. The American legal system, is a result of this conscious choice to avoid Athenian-styled mob litigation. It has long been believed by historians and classicists alike, that many of Athens problems were due to its mob-mentality system (as opposed to American-styled representative system).

We can even look to more modern examples of litigation at the mob level, specifically during the American expansion west. This type of justice was occasionally practiced yet it never fully caught on. I think that is important

Now what does this have to do with the Internet?
The Wiki or Gross Share model is open to comments and edits by anyone and everyone and that opens them to up to demagogic mob group think. Think of 4Chan and the “You Dun Goofed” meme. This is just a smaller echo.

Strong comments may create their own social system, and equally strong echoing voices from the crowd make it socially unacceptable to offer a differing perspective. This is what happed in this specific instance that was absent from the original, “You Dun Goofed” meme.

This is a form of peer censorship. Sure you can speak up for the one being chastised but you open yourself up to the same treatment, as I exampled. The original blogger, Mark, after one of my posts offering a differing perspective, attacked me as also being morally reprehensible. Yet all I had done was offer a different opinion. This was done with very little thought on the matter. I was told to take my matters elsewhere. Yet I was using the Internet for its very intended purpose, the expression of myself.

This is the dangerous side of chastisement through social media . It expands beyond the original target and it encompasses others. It becomes Us vs. Them. and that is why I reject the growth of this moralizing mob on sites like 4chan. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

These distinctions are important. It shows that comments and the mobs that make them can take new and frightening characteristics. This is the dark side to the “Wisdom” of the crowd.

That Trotsky is what I am attacking. The undying negative group think that exhibits it self around “moral chastisements.” Never mind we have no idea if some of the worst voices might have done something equally reprehensible but just didn’t get caught. The crowd grant the commenters’ anonymity and the one being attacked cannot possibly respond in all forums of discussion.

In this instance commenters made too much of being “in the right” And I must ask, at what point does a “story” become just a bunch of trolls beating a dead horse?

The Us vs. Them form of Peer Censorship, as expressed in this thread, ruins the very ideals that so many of the mob-moralizers claim to embrace. The negative goes viral much easier then the positive.

I suppose I am alone in thinking that a slap on the wrist is enough? OK she dun goofed. Does this deserve to be drawn out?

My whole point is that people are making bald and possibly slanderous judgments of someone’s character based only upon a short video clip, I don’t like that. We’ve come to the point where we trust any ol’ sound or video clip we see to be the end all or be all of someone. Lets face it, you don’t want me to judge your character now based on a video of you in your sophomore year of college.

As I’ve said before I feel a lot of the most vile mouthed and judgmental folks here probably would be the first to ski jump off your roof and make a YouTube video about it. Thats what I mean when I accuse you of the holier then thou attitude.

“But what if a group like that decides to wield their power to do something we don’t agree with?”

Uh… then that would be bad?

I’m not sure what you’re going for here. It’s like saying if a bunch of people got together and did something really horrible that we all hate it would be bad. As opposed to a bunch of people getting together and doing something that a lot of people are ambivalent about, which is still kind of bad but not as bad unless you consider the potential to do something worse.

The potential to do something worse is always there, and everywhere.

Well depends on the scale. An attempt to kill the president for instance, would probably get the people posting exposed and arrested. Go figure.

And that seems like kind of a given.

Also, there’s nothing stopping anyone from organizing stuff via the internet. The Tea Party, for instance, does attempt to be as organized online I guess there’s just not as many of them or something.

Having said that, despite the common cat (Felis catus) having entered into something of a collusive (I think symbiotic would be overstating it) relationship with humans for some 10,000 years, the species has managed to persevere for some 7 million years without Tender Vittles or Fancy Feast.

I think it’s a bit of an anthropomorphism to imagine that cats when set loose are “half-starved” and “struggling” any more than any other organism is half-starved and struggling in its daily quest for survival.

If all humans dropped dead tomorrow, cats would endure quite happily, I suspect. They don’t need us, and it’s entirely our own projection on them as to their “desire” to be “with” us.

It will be hard to admit the gradual loss of Face. After Peak Face, they’ll move on to the less desirable sources of Face, like Face deposits found on the frozen tundra (where scattered Faces exist, frozen).

Eventually, however, even these sources will not sustain Face demand and, Ceiling Cat willing, they will have about face – transitioning to something more diverse, renewable and abundant: like Asses. You’ll never run out of Asses.

I think we owe it to our cats to make our faces as fat as possible (or perhaps, as muscular as possible, since lean meat will be better for their tiny hearts), and when the world-wide Ebola pandemic catches us, try to keel over in a place which allows for easy access and convenient snacking. Preferably in a cold, dry place like the cellar since it will take more than a single sitting for them to eat our faces. Possibly as long as a week or two, depending.

Also, we should start moisturizing with tuna juice. That’s just being considerate, people.

In my experience, most everything (non-human, in the wild) is half-starving. You yourself are looking at it from the domesticated perspective of a dude who doesn’t have to spend hours upon hours of physical labor looking for food to live on, every single day of his life.

As a pretty regular backpacker, I’m fairly certain I could make do without the trappings of civilization just fine, if necessary. But I don’t think the added ‘freedom’ would quite make up for the very real possibility of a highly violent death and severely shortened lifespan.

Now yes, cats as a species would survive without us. But I was more getting at the billions of cats walking around now that some among us think should be ‘freed’. Or, for instance, my cat Snickers (nyaw!) who would have died an excruciating death from bladder complications if not for access to a human veterinarian, or access to a metric ton of my human money.

The desire of cats to be around us is very real. It was specifically selected for over thousands of years. Just because we made it reality, doesn’t make it a wish-fulfillment projection.

I’m glad she was identified and hope she will be prosecuted. Her actions clearly harmed the cat and were wrong. Let us all rejoice that justice can be done here and that we all speak out against her actions.

That said, I wish people would take some time to reflect over the not immediately obvious implications of the values that a case like this activates. Any meat eater reading this has by buying meat in fact paid others to inflict far worse harms on many other cows, pigs and birds.

I was pretty horrified when I saw this and while I wouldn’t wish any physical harm to come to this woman, I feel the public shaming she is receiving is not inappropriate. And it would seem that she is unable to open her mouth without digging herself in deeper (saying she thinks everyone is overreacting and it is “just a cat” is just plain stupid on her part and probably won’t help her with the RSPCA). However, she said something about thinking it was funny and not realizing the cat would be trapped, how she thought it would wriggle out and I think she may be telling the truth there. This woman is obviously not very smart. I can see she may have thought this was a funny trick to play on the cat (“ha, the cat is in the box”), but not considered intended for the cat to be trapped. The possibility the cat might be trapped and could have been killed (due to heat, dehydration, being compacted when the bin was emptied in a truck) probably never occurred to her. Sometimes pranks get out of hand. I am not letting her off the hook. She can be a cruel person without being a psychopath, we can criticize her actions (And publicly shame her for them) without saying she is a proto-serial killer.

Cruelty to animals and innocents are two things that make my blood boil and want to behead somebody.

This woman obviously has something going on under the surface and needs some help. Also a private security force because she’s got the internet after her. She’s got nothing to worry from me but there are others less patient and balanced. Though, I might suggest buying pepper spray and some new trainers.

There is only one thing that can be done to definitively and conclusively close the book on this: 1) The woman must apologize to the cat in person on a live video feed streamed world-wide, 2) the woman must spend fifteen hours confined in a filthy garbage bin (no breaks, no food or water).

Anything less than that is not justice and she deserves to be hounded to the end of the earth until she pays her debt.

‘She’s been under a great deal of strain these past two weeks.
‘Her father had a nasty fall and has been in a critical condition in hospital ever since.
‘She’s very close to her father and I think it’s had a real impact on her.

It’s probably not a good idea to take her explanation at face value. She’s trying to backpedal here because she got caught. I somehow doubt the part of her story where it was a quick, irresistible urge, considering the she could have just gone back and opened the lid at any time.

OK, so here we have someone who did something assholish in public, was caught on camera, it went out over the Internet, and the Internet did the following:

(a) Found out who she was.
(b) Engaged in the usual Internet douchebaggery.

Here’s the thing. Internet douchebaggery will always be there. There will always be a vocal anonymous calling for the death of anyone for any reason. We recognize it. It’s douchebaggery. It happens all the time, and yet people aren’t quivering in fear that 10-year old John Q. Douchebag is going to shiv them for proclaiming that Sarah Palin is the Devil or that Steve Jobs is God, are they?

So cut it out with the hand-wringing “OMG, it’s so horrible that people are sending out death threats!” And men should always tip their hats at women, but they don’t always take off their Phillies cap, do they?

The important point is that she was found out. She did something morally reprehensible and did not get away with it. Her whuffie has been damaged, as it should be. She is now Mary Bale, the woman who bins cats. That will affect everyone’s dealings with her, and that is as it should be. Consequences.

Actually, it is just a cat that was put in a bin and was rescued with no harm done. The rest is just internet hype and mass hysteria. Mostly from people who don’t give a flying squirrel about all humans suffering every day in order to sustain our luxorious western life style where a video of a cat in a bin is a disturbance enough for calling bloody murder.

My father had a heart attack, and my mother called 911. Some cops rushed over and resuscitated him. Unfortunately, he suffered brain damage. After that, he often didn’t recognize me or other family members, including his wife of fifty years. After a few months of therapy, he passed away. Soon after that, my mother fell ill, needing round-the-clock care. She died within a few months of my father’s passing. A very painful time for me.
And yet, it never occurred to me to trash a cat.
So I guess I don’t buy the “my father is ill” excuse, avraamov.

How frightening, the thought that when people look at us they may see us as we really are.

My guess is that cat binner lady will just be more particular about where she commits future cruelties. How very human that, instead of engaging in introspection on her clearly fucked up value system as a result of this, she instead just wonders what all the fuss is about.

Mary Bale has something common with Eden Aberjil. Both gave halfhearted apologies for their actions and stated that they didn’t understand what all the fuss is about. Neither of them are likely to be punished by the legal system but both need to be shown the error of their ways. Who is going to do it?

@Talia : yeah, I think 4chan’s attitude towards cats is bleeding out on the entire Internet – “Harass the cat-haters” (not the words, but the actual action) is becoming a popular meme, same as rickrolling. Which I find frankly terrifying : turning the Internets into a second Ulthar is one thing. Contaminating the entire Internet with their attitude towards (for instance) women, non-whites, etc…not quite so fun.

This lady doesn’t get it, and the article barely touches on it — this isn’t ‘just a cat.’ This is someone’s companion animal. To do this to a stray cat would have been inhumane and horrific on its own, but this animal is attached to a family that loves her. This action caused worry and distress on the part of the family.

Nowhere do I even see it mentioned in the article the possibility that the cat might have been put in a garbage truck, smothered to death and been hauled to the dump. That’s the situation she put this companion animal at risk of when she made that decision.

What an absolutely sick, heartless and cruel woman. I have no sympathy for her. No amount of distress in my own life would ever cause me to commit cruelty to another living being, human or animal. She didn’t just commit cruelty on this cat, she committed to the family that loves and cares for this animal.

She should be put in jail. I think death or prison might be harsh sentences, but jail most certainly, steep fines and community work with animals are entirely appropriate.

“This lady doesn’t get it, and the article barely touches on it — this isn’t ‘just a cat.’ This is someone’s companion animal. To do this to a stray cat would have been inhumane and horrific on its own, but this animal is attached to a family that loves her. This action caused worry and distress on the part of the family.”

Gee, if it was so loved, why was it out wondering like a stray? If you love your pets then keep them under control. I don’t defend this callous act, and recently spent a night trying to find a home for a cat that wouldn’t leave my doorstep, and even put up posters the next day. If it was my dog wandering around and crapping in your garden you’d be enraged, but for cat owners we’re all supposed to just take this.

The tendency of cats in england towards “wondering about like strays” has its roots in the strong british literary tradition of ambitious rapscallions and street urchin dreamers like Oliver Twist and David Copperfield.

in france, by contrast, cats wonder about deep existential paradoxes, like embittered survivors of the anti-Vichy resistance in smoke-filled cafes.

There is a great deal of “holier then thou” going on here. What is that saying? Let she/he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Well, all right.

I’ve never abused an animal. I guess that gives me the right to feel angry at this woman. I’ve never committed a crime against an animal or a person that would raise the ire of others if they knew.

My sympathy for this woman’s “reputation” is nil. Her reputation has been damaged for a good reason: She threw a cat in a trash bin, where it suffered for many hours before it was lucky enough to be found by its owner. It could have easily been killed. In response to the anger that she’s facing now, her response is “it’s just a cat.”

She deserves to have a reputation as an animal abuser. A good reputation–one that is not of an animal abuser–is one that is untrue.

That’s the thing about reputations. Sometimes people have a bad reputation for a good reason. That guy who feels up women at parties? He deserves a bad reputation. The contractor who stiffs his clients? He deserves a bad reputation. The pathological liar who makes up stories to make herself look better? She deserves a reputation as a pathological liar.

Reputations can be damaged unfairly, for sure. But that does not mean *all* bad reputations are unfair.

Holtt WTW!
Hate add fuel to an already bubbling cauldron of madness this is what she has to say about the whole sorry affair:- “”People are reading too much into things. I’ve no feelings about cats one way or the other. I don’t keep pets myself, but I have no problem with people who do.

“To think this video is being seen around the world is unbelievable. I’m a very private person and don’t want to upset any members of my family. I don’t know what my relatives will think, but to be honest I think everyone’s overreacting a bit.

“OK, I shouldn’t have done it, but it’s just a cat at the end of the day. I don’t think I deserve to be hated by people all over the world, it was just a split second of madness.”

The reason there are more comments in this thread is because there are about 3 or 4 viewpoints being thrashed about.*

Whereas in the DNC gang-rape and lemur soup topics, there is consensus that it is bad bad bad, and there are only so many comments that is going to engender on a site like boingboing. Feministing and the World Defense Fund are bound to have a lot more activity, respectively.

If she had only apologized and had said the bit about having a “split second of misjudgment”, I think this would have sufficed. But no, she apparently had to make her rationalizations public. People don’t want to hear them.

That’s the kicker, though. It wasn’t even a ‘split second of misjudgement’ (she seems to have forgotten we all WATCHED WHAT SHE DID). She LOOKED AROUND to make sure no-one would see her, then performed her little deed.

I would say she’s definitely a psychopath, and she’s only sorry she got caught.

See, that’s the thing that bugs me the most about this whole affair. A woman does a fairly G-rated act of assholery, and a whole lotta people think she must be psychotic. I’d be much more inclined to agree if she’d tossed kitty ‘neath the wheels of a speeding lorry, or tried to unscrew its head with her bare hands, or stomped on it, or tossed it down a well, or fed it rat poison or a bowl of antifreeze, or bit chunks out of its ears, or stuffed a pencil up its bum. (My imagination is unpleasantly vivid today, so I think I’ll stop there.)

See, there stubbornly persists a mindset in some people that certain animals have no particular value. The term “vermin” exists to describe critters that are, in effect, “weeds” in an ecosystem in the perception of some people who feel they need to exert some control over the environment. Too many coyotes near your farm? Thin out those varmints. A pesky new introduced species wreaking havoc on a native ecosystem? Either restore balance by eliminating the intruder, or make peace with Nature’s new balance, even if that means extinction of some formerly prosperous natives.

I know it’s not a popular opinion hereabouts, but it seems to me that undervaluing animals is not necessarily an automatic sign of a dangerous mental condition. My dad once beheaded a sidewinder with a shovel in order to prevent it biting his petrified 7-year-old son. Most people would call that a sensible choice. His mother used to walk him to school carrying a shotgun during a spate of local attacks by mountain lions; again, not particularly controversial. He and his friends used to shoot rats at the dump. It was considered a public service back then; today it would be far more controversial. His family would keep cats around the farm to keep the rodent population down, but they were always “outside” cats, never allowed in the house. Nobody worried if the coyotes grabbed one every now and then because, well, they were “just cats,” and it was no trouble at all to replace them. Sixty-plus years after the fact, my dad can name all the dogs and cows and horses from his boyhood home. Not one cat. And I can safely say that he’s not sociopathic… he just would sooner name his crescent wrenches than a cat.

The casual cheapness with which Ms. Bale treated that cat’s safety and comfort is not right. It’s not legal. It’s really not defensible. But I don’t think it’s necessarily sociopathic. If she values cats about as much as my dad values gophers (now *there’s* a bloodstained history!), then maybe somebody needs to explain to her what differentiates domesticated pets from valueless vermin. If anything, her mindset seems more a relic from a bygone age than the sign of a nascent psycho-killer. I do understand that tossing a cat into a trash can on a whim is not comparable to self-defense or pest control. But the fact remains that some people simply do not possess the enlightened attitude that “…The Lord God Made Them All.” Ms. Bale wasn’t playing Frog Baseball, or tying a string of lit firecrackers to the cat’s tail. She’s selfish and an asshole for performing this act of unkindness, though it’s hard to believe she had murder on her mind. But it’s certainly no slam-dunk to diagnose any pathology from this video.

I look forward to the Enlightenment Of Tomorrow: not only will owning pets be illegal, but nobody will believe we actually tried to dress our animal companions in funny outfits for Halloween. Such abuses upon the dignity of our Animal Overlords will seem heretical in the extreme.

I don’t mean to be glib at all, but it is possible your dad was indeed a sociopath. Just because certain mental aberrations are considered “normal” within the context of a particular community does not mean the behavior is not a mental illness shared by a large group of people.

Also, it assumes that everyone at that time and even in that community was of a like mind in shooting rats for sport or whatever other killing went on to while away the summer nights as a young boy, or full-grown man, as the case may be. Meaning it was “normal” and therefore sane. Conversely, this implies that NOT killing rats or snakes would make one insane.

Historically, there are lots of human dysfunctions embraced on a society-wide level, or indeed considered virtues, which in retrospect we now recognize as cruel and sadistic (one of the oft-cited justifications for American slavery was that “back then, everyone owned slaves,” which, of course, is false). Just because your dad shot rats, killed snakes, and considered cats disposable and he had support from the greater community does not address the possibility of sociopathy.

You cite an extreme example of a snake being killed to save the life of a 7 year-old — “petrified” was how you put it — but a great many acts of killing (most, in my view) are completely unnecessary and only embellished after the fact to justify the action.

While hiking in Washington many years ago, I was startled to find a rattlesnake spring up at eye level just four short feet from my face. I had the means to kill it, but I chose another course of action. I walked away. I have also had face-to-face encounters (not literally face-to-face, of course, but at as large a distance as I could maintain) with black bears and grizzly bears. A prudent hiker knows, for example, to avoid a riparian area of chest-high alder where there are numerous fresh claw marks on nearby trees when the salmonberries are in season and the salmon are running and where one is downwind of a bear meaning they cannot see, hear, nor smell you. Sure. You could walk into that with the appropriate firearm to dispatch the beast.

Or you could choose to exercise the reason of a rational and discerning Homo sapien and stay the eff out.

Many bears, sharks, cougars, coyotes, wolves are killed because they are “encroaching” on human areas (pretty much all of the planet at this point). The tale told is always one of a marauding beast bearing down on a frightened child. Of course, precisely the opposite is true. We are encroaching on them.

But really I think most people who kill those animals enjoy it and only adopt a tone of casual business-like indifference after the fact to portray themselves in a heroic or utilitarian light. The standard “I did what I had to do,” which I find disingenuous.

In the end, you conclude (mostly in jest, I assume, but not completely) that were we to curtail our narcissistic excess at using animals for our whim, we would be denied pets, silly outfits for them, and ultimately would bow in deference to our new gods.

I will, for the sake of clarity, place that ENTIRELY in the realm of jest, because it deserves no better. If you disagree, please speak up.

Conversely, this implies that NOT killing rats or snakes would make one insane.

One might as well argue that, while going down to the 7/11 on the corner for a Slurpee on a hot summer day like today would be sane, NOT going down to 7/11 for a Slurpee would be insane. So all those people buying Cherry Cokes at the AM/PM are to be locked up. Or something.

We could go on at some length about the nature of insanity–and why not? It appears we already have–but without resorting to dictionary definitions and referrals to trade journals and white papers and such, is it not a stretch to group outdated standards of conduct as mass mental illness?

I always operated under the assumption that mental illness implied a fault in reasoning or perception that lay demonstrably outside the norm. And there would be degrees, as well, which is why “eccentricity” is viewed differently from “sociopathy” or “psychopathy.” And more to my point, that “norm” evolves and changes from culture to culture and century to century. Now I have no formal education whatsoever when it comes to these matters; indeed, I possess little more than a high school education. And I certainly haven’t kept up with the latest schools of thought, to say nothing of the outdated ones. But since you mention slavery, is it today’s consensus that the widespread pro-slavery mindset in slaveholding cultures such as the American confederacy or ancient Egypt was a mental illness? Certainly in all times there was a right-thinking contingent that believed owning other humans was Evil (some of the slaves, at least, would have been sure to feel this way), but are the widely-accepted evil practices of a culture “sociopathic”? Or are they simply wrong, misinformed, ignorant, self-aggrandizing, under-evolved, and just plain evil?

As for my old man’s barbaric attitudes toward animals, if we’re going to address the possibility of its possible sociopathy, I’m gonna have to go to the dictionary after all. Merriam-Webster defines “sociopathic” as “of, relating to, or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or exhibiting antisocial personality disorder.” And when you follow up with “antisocial” you get “hostile or harmful to organized society; especially: being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm.”

Now, a dictionary definition ain’t exactly the latest news from the APA, and I sincerely apologize for bringing such a high-school-level source to bear on the topic, but it does support my point from before: “deviating sharply from the social norm” is a key phrase.

We may have gotten our societal standards to the point today where tossing cats into trash cans deviates sharply enough to qualify this act as antisocial, and thus sociopathic. If so, then Bale can be accused of being a sociopath, or even a psychopath, if today’s social standards so dictate. In which case I’d be wrong for thinking people can’t judge her mindset thus (though they’d still be perfectly free to call her evil, or an asshole, or whatever).

But society’s standards were not always so, and so I believe that sociopathy can not be considered a timeless standard.

Personally, I’ve always found myself very confused with regards to the idea that people shouldn’t keep pets if they care about animals.

I mean, are there actually people out there with cats actively trying to escape their awful domestic bondage? On the rare occasion I have reason to, it takes me a great deal of effort to get my cat to temporarily stop sleeping next to me in bed. The idea that she would be happier half-starved and struggling to feed herself is comical. It makes you wonder why no one ever wants to make that same argument against raising children.

Where in the hell was 4chan and all these other Internet heroes when Camp X-RAY got going? Why don’t they start finding disappeared people and naming and shaming torturers. How about finding these Taliban who just poison gassed an Afghan school full of teachers and girls? Wikileaks taking a run at the U.S. military was a start, but lets be an equal opportunity Internet shall we? Bad cat woman. I’ve covered far worse cases of animal cruelty and no-one hunted down those arseholes. Want to get exorcised about human cruelty? There’s a long list. You’d all best get to work.

I think you’re missing the part where groups of people on the internet are divided on issues by numerous things. Thinking /b/ is going to suddenly band together on any single issue besides abused cats, scientology, or other equally-unpunished but socially unacceptable issues is like fearing neo-cons taking over the Senate – except that the neo-cons actually have a chance in this context.

I don’t want to police anything Trent. I just wonder though if say the Tea Party movement were to get themselves as organized online as /b/ would, what would be the result? Or Aryan Nation or PETA? We think /b/ is ok because we agree with their actions to some extent. But what if a group like that decides to wield their power to do something we don’t agree with? It’s a hydra – no one head to cut off or at least hand a cookie to.

Did she plan on returning with Ashton Kutcher later in the day and tell the cat, “YOU’VE BEEN PUNK’D”???

What kind of sick person does that? Yes, serial killers/sociopaths/psychopaths often start out harming animals and it usually starts with “just a cat”… and nobody cares until all of a sudden a person is missing… and then found dead.

All the apologists can go suck it. “Oh noes, you’re making a big deal out of nothing, wahhh..” Honestly, do you even hear yourselves? Yes there are “bigger problems” but hell, this is a prime example of a nutball who could potentially hurt a person. It’s a living creature, with a brain and a pulse, and yes, the cat is fine now, but that doesn’t excuse her actions. She threw it in the TRASH. So I guess it’s socially appropriate to throw living creatures in the garbage now, because, hey, if I can’t eat it and it doesn’t talk, who gives a shit? Obviously these people who are defending this woman don’t have friends or loved ones. I sure wouldn’t want anyone throwing my dog in the trash, and if someone did, I’d be a lot less forgiving than the owners of this cat.

What if that was someone’s child? Plenty of children have been kidnapped and returned unharmed, does that excuse the fact that they were kidnapped? Does that make it any less of a crime? No and no. If my neice toddled off and someone threw her in the trash and chuckled “haha, oh well, she’ll get out”… yeah she might get out but it doesn’t make it any less fucked up.

Ohhhh yes, but she’s a human and those are the only creatures that matter, mm, yes that’s right. Thanks for clearing that up. *rolls eyes*

Point taken, but you can’t deny people have pushed this story to the point of absurdity. I doubt many would pass their own psych-eval tests that they are trolling on about. Seriously, tame the trolls, you might be next to get mobbed by angry 4chan folks with pitchforks. This is mob mentality at it worst, and really a continuation of the last time 4chan was involved in any story.

If this was a semi-violent act I would think differently. But after reading these comments I feel the story about the lady has gone from a tale of poor judgment to one stoning her reputation. Seriously, the trolling should have stopped when she requested police protection. That is where the line needs to be drawn.

Poor judgment shouldn’t provoke violent threats, that is when, in my mind, the table turns against these teetotaling “moral crusaders”. Violence or threat thereof really should be the line, but I am not surprised that the 4chan crowd hasn’t learned how to not Mob some inconsequential minutiae.